| Topic Name: |
What does it take to get in top 15%? |
| Message Name: |
school is an individual thing |
| Date Posted: |
11/07/2002 |
| In Reply To: |
are key -- we've said it over and over because it's the truth.
I've found that the best way to "absorb all the material" is to take practice exams and develop arguments for issues that I know will show up on the exam. For example, in your property class I'm sure there are a few issues that are a given . . . maybe BFP, adverse possession, gifts, etc. Develop a "canned" argument for each of these issues that you can easily manipulate to incorporate the exam facts. Develop the argument carefully, incorporating in key things you know the professor will be looking for and also things you know other students may not include (to hopefully get you a few brownie points). Then practice applying these arguments to hypos.
One caveat: when you get the the real exam make sure to read the question carefully and make sure that your "canned" arguments truly respond to the call of the question -- if they don't you need to be comfortable enough with the argument to manipulate it. Don't make the mistake of seeing a BFP issue and plopping down some canned statment that doesn't really apply. I guess what I'm trying to say is that having "canned" arguments doesn't relieve you of the duty to "think" during the exam.
The more you use the arguments the more you internalize them and hopefully they'll just flow out during the exam.
Hope that helps. |
| Message: |
my LSATs weren't that great, but i only took it once, and didn't study all that for it. my grades in law school reflects my study habits. I tend to do ok, but i'm at the top 30% of the class.
which means: i didn't do outlines, didn't brief cases, went to 75% of my classes, BUT I read all the material.
school, tests-- it's all arbitrary. of course working hard guarantees that you will never self flagellate over what could have been. But to say "I got top 15% LSATS" then to presume that "theoretically, I should be..." means that you are not really thinking things through-- like a real lawyer.
You must take into account:
1. people who did not study for the LSATS, or were handicapped in some say during the LSATS (sick that day, etc).
2. people who just don't perform well on tests, but write and analyze very well
3. people who study really well, think things through, and process information well
4. people who think in a vertical/logical fashion -- particularly engineers
5. people who can write extremely well
6. people who just "get it"
7. people with some training in reading cases, understanding the law
8. people who have help from current attorneys in guiding them through the process
I'm sure I'm missing some obvious "issues" that may affect one's grades relative to their LSAT, but to simply state: "I did well on my LSAT, which should translate to grades"-- is a bit simple, don't you think? Perhaps that simplicity was the reason why you didn't perform as well in school.
My advice: study, do well, think, think, think. and yeah, even tho i didn't do it-- practice exams...
|
|
